Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I agree with Jenny: I would love to know the reasoning behind this. As for machine actionable: although I’m no great programmer, I do know that anyone building something using the copyright date would have to insert at least one line of code to strip out the copyright symbol. However, depending on the situation this element could contain any of the following four options for a book with copyright date 2002 (2.11.1.3): ©2002 copyright 2002 ℗2002 phonogram 2002 There are other cases of this in AACR2/RDA (a good example is the 300$c which includes the units- which can vary- and the quantities in one piece of text) but the copyright date seems more alarming as it was added anew in RDA. Thanks, Tom (further ramblings on the 300 fieldhttp://www.aurochs.org/aurlog/2012/07/10/how-big-is-my-book-mashcat-session/) --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenny Wright Sent: 30 January 2013 09:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I too have wondered about this - an instruction to record copyright date is fine, but given that, in MARC, 264 #4 $c means copyright date, why should we need to insert the © symbol before it? Jenny Wright Development Manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: 29 January 2013 20:25 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I think you have a good point. If the instruction were worded, 2.11.1 Basic instructions on recording copyright *statements* it would make perfect sense to include the © just like we include by in a statement of responsibility. But it's worded ... copyright dates which implies that that data element should exclusively be a date. As to whether this makes it less machine actionable I cannot say, though I would point out for whatever it's worth that the Dublin Core library metadata action profile lists copyright as a refinement of the element, date, which would suggest for DC at least (which, whatever else it is, is closer to machine actionable data than our MARC records) the © symbol is not considered part of the data. (See: http://dublincore.org/documents/library-application-profile/index.shtml#DateCopyrighted) Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Beth Guay Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:23 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I'm hung up on the RDA instruction for recording a copyright date as a symbol or spelled out element conjoined to a text string otherwise known as a date. It seems to me, that here we have an excellent effort to carry our data from MARC to linked data format through use of a newly defined 264 field, and rather than entering data (the date) into the area (264 second indicator 4 $c) that contains data defined as copyright date, we enter a symbol plus a date, or a spelled out word plus a date. What we are transcribing is not a date but a symbol plus a date. Is it a string or a thing? http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/5.html Is ©2002 machine actionable? Shouldn't it be up to the content display system to supply the symbol or spelled out element -- © or copyright or ℗ or phonogram? Have there been any successful efforts that anyone is aware of which is a system that serves up labeled data elements from a complex combination of elements in the leader 008 field byte 06 DtSt, byte 07-10 Date 1 and byte 11-14 Date 2? Beth - Beth Guay Continuing and Electronic Resources Cataloger Metadata Services Department 2200 McKeldin Library, University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742 (301) 405-9339 fax (301) 314-9971 bag...@umd.edumailto:bag...@umd.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Snow, Karen Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:58 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question Patricia Folger wrote: The former coding in OCLC looks like overkill -- How useful/necessary/correct is it to code this dtst to other than s have duplicate dates in the 008
Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
Regardless of Berne convention and laws, don't confuse the surrogate for the item described. I don't think I copyright statement on the _cataloging record_ but refering to the copyright of the item described ever played any legal role in establishing copyright on the item described, even in cases where copyright statements on items themselves have legal import. I can say yes, I often have to write code to strip out the irrelevant parts of MARC records, including c or copyright symbols when I just want an integer date. And it is odd for RDA to be continuing this practice. But perhaps just another compromise to the legacy. At any rate, it's not a very significant challenge, compared to all the challenges MARC data gives to software, and all of the challenges still there or newly introduced with RDA MARC data too. Don't spend a lot of time on it on software's behalf, there are other priorities for software, it's not a big deal. On 1/30/2013 11:20 AM, Jdchronicler wrote: Although the copyright symbol is necessary for a copyright statement, members of this list from nations that have signed the Berne Convention For The Protection of Literary and Artistic Works should know that copyright statements are no longer necessary. Under the Berne Convention, all published materials are automatically copyrighted including the e-mails on this list. Yet some members of this list may work in nations that have not signed the Berne Convention. For them, copyright statements may still be necessary. I do wonder why they should be considered necessary on RDA cataloging records. Linda Frankel MLIS Student at San Jose State University -Original Message- From: Meehan, Thomas t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk To: RDA-L RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 2:07 am Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I agree with Jenny: I would love to know the reasoning behind this. As for machine actionable: although I’m no great programmer, I do know that anyone building something using the copyright date would have to insert at least one line of code to strip out the copyright symbol. However, depending on the situation this element could contain any of the following four options for a book with copyright date 2002 (2.11.1.3): ©2002 copyright 2002 ℗2002 phonogram 2002 There are other cases of this in AACR2/RDA (a good example is the 300$c which includes the units- which can vary- and the quantities in one piece of text) but the copyright date seems more alarming as it was added anew in RDA. Thanks, Tom (further ramblings on the 300 field http://www.aurochs.org/aurlog/2012/07/10/how-big-is-my-book-mashcat-session/) --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk mailto:t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk *From:*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA?] *On Behalf Of *Jenny Wright *Sent:* 30 January 2013 09:30 *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I too have wondered about this - an instruction to record copyright date is fine, but given that, in MARC, 264 #4 $c///means/copyright date, why should we need to insert the © symbol before it? Jenny Wright Development Manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: 29 January 2013 20:25 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I think you have a good point. If the instruction were worded, 2.11.1 Basic instructions on recording copyright *statements* it would make perfect sense to include the © just like we include by in a statement of responsibility. But it's worded ... copyright dates which implies that that data element should exclusively be a date. As to whether this makes it less machine actionable I cannot say, though I would point out for whatever it's worth that the Dublin Core library metadata action profile lists copyright as a refinement of the element, date, which would suggest for DC at least (which, whatever else it is, is closer to machine actionable data than our MARC records) the © symbol is not considered part of the data. (See: http://dublincore.org/documents/library-application-profile/index.shtml#DateCopyrighted) Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Beth Guay Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:23 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
When you are entering both a publication date and a copyright day in either 260 or two 264 fields, and you are coding the publication date in Date1 and the copyright date in the 008 Date2, Date Type must be 't' because: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd008a.html t - Publication date and copyright date Date of publication/release/production/execution is present in 008/07-10 and a copyright notice date or phonogram copyright notice date is present in 008/11-14. In other words, if the date in Date 2 is a copyright date, then Date Type is coded 't' to *say* that the date in Date2 is a copyright date. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:29 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I think perhaps despite the discussion, a question remains on coding in OCLC: If you're using 264s, and the date of publication and the date of copyright are the same, which is the proper code in the Date Type, s or t? Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Asst. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:12 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I'll apologize in advance for the length of this. I'm trying to work up some RDA training for my copy cataloging staff and am working through a number of DLC RDA records that we are downloading. For the past year, we've had RDA records routed to our Non-DLC cataloger as we wait for RDA to settle. Given that the numbers of RDA records are increasing we're rapidly approaching April, I need to get some basic local guidelines set move these back to our LC copy catalogers. I'm having particular issues with aspects of the publication area. My current question: I'm repeatedly seeing in the 008 dtst t used to indicate a publication and copyright date. While it is technically correct that both dates are given in this record, in the past we've mainly seen and used t in the dtst field when those dates differ, even by a year. What I'm seeing now is this sort of transcription (an older record still using 260): 260 Stanford, California : |b Stanford University Press, |c [2012], ©2012. Trying to make sense out of this coding I viewed this record in LC's catalog they have used 008 dtst s with: 264 _1 |a Stanford, California : |b Stanford University Press, |c [2012] [title in question is Competitive strategies for the 21st century : theory, history, and practice] OCLC770694281 LC 2011052146 The 008 dtst coding of the record in LC's database (as opposed to the record we downloaded from OCLC which apparently has been edited separately) looks more correct to me. The former coding in OCLC looks like overkill -- How useful/necessary/correct is it to code this dtst to other than s have duplicate dates in the 008 date area? This raises the larger question: for those working up training for your copy catalogers, at what point do you tell your people to leave copy as is, even if that isn't what you would personally prefer? To the average library user, both transcriptions give essentially the same information. At this point, given the variety of 260/264 interpretations/transcriptions, I'm seriously debating telling my copy catalogers If the 008/260 in the LC copy record adequately conveys the book in hand is essentially correct, leave it. While I appreciate cataloger discretion when I am creating a record or editing existing copy, I'm finding it exceedingly difficult to create these local copycat editing guidelines for the plethora of interpretations we're seeing. Impatiently waiting for RDA postings from ALA Midwinter to be posted. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I will add one thing to Greta's very clear explanation. While the field explicitly states that this is a copyright date, it does not state what type of copyright date is being recorded. There are two types of copyright date--copyright for text (the (c) date) and the phonogram copyright date (the (p) date), which is the copyright for recorded sound. Again, these are two different things, and both may appear on the same item (and be different). I remember vaguely that when the field was first being created, there was some talk of separating the symbol and the date, but in the end they were left together in one field. Nancy On 1/30/2013 9:40 AM, Greta de Groat wrote: Since i see that a Stanford record is being cited in this discussion, i would like to offer a little in the way of explanation. Steven is right, the initial RDA test instructions for pieces which lacked a date of publication were to record the copyright date if it appeared on the piece, and to use it to infer the date of publication. Therefore, you would get the date of publication bracketed and also the copyright date recorded, even if they were the same. We contacted LC and were told that the Date Type coding for this would indeed be t, and the same date would be recorded in Dates 1 and 2 The LC-PCC-PS was recently updated to indicate that the requirement was to infer the date of publication from the copyright date and bracket it, but it no longer says to record the copyright date. Therefore, following this practice, one would have a bracketed date in the 264 1, but not record a 264 3 with the copyright date. In this case, Date Type would be s and there would be no date recorded in Date 2. However, some of us are continuing the original practice because we believe it to be clearer and more useful. It is also not incorrect, it's just that LC is not mandating it any more. One reason is that a bracketed date in the 264 1 is ambiguous. It can mean i have a copyright date that i'm not recording but i'm inferring the pub date from it or it can mean i don't have a date anywhere on this and i'm just guessing based on internal or external evidence or the fact that it just came in the door and looks new. We think recording the copyright date is much more useful for copy cataloging, as one can confirm that the copyright date actually appears on the piece, rather than looking at the record and not knowing whether to look for a date or not. It seems logical and helpful to record a date that actually appears. The other reason is that the copyright date is an explicit legal statement. In these digital days when copyright questions are coming up all of the time, i would think that an explicit copyright date would be something that we'd want to record (even if things are technically copyrighted without it. I was very surprised at the LC-PCC-PS change, as i had thought the original policy quite sensible. It is not redundant, as publication date and copyright date are two different things. We're not needing to save space on cards any more. And i have no insight into why we continue to use the copyright symbol since, as has been pointed out, the field tagging makes the fact that it's a copyright date explicit. I don't remember that ever being discussed, but it is a good point (though programmers should be able to take the date out of the Date2 field if it has been correctly coded). Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: SEVIM MCCUTCHEONlmccu...@kent.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:29:20 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I think perhaps despite the discussion, a question remains on coding in OCLC: If you're using 264s, and the date of publication and the date of copyright are the same, which is the proper code in the Date Type, s or t? Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Asst. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:12 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I'll apologize in advance for the length of this. I'm trying to work up some RDA training for my copy cataloging staff and am working through a number of DLC RDA records that we are downloading. For the past year, we've had RDA records routed to our Non-DLC cataloger as we wait for RDA to settle. Given that the numbers of RDA records are increasing we're rapidly approaching April, I need to get some basic local guidelines set move these back to our LC copy catalogers. I'm having particular issues with aspects of the publication area. My current question: I'm repeatedly seeing in the 008 dtst t
[RDA-L] thanks -- RE: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I very much appreciate your detailed reply. I want to hasten to clarify that I wasn’t trying to point out any institution as doing anything wrong or nonstandard. Merely citing an example (of a record that looked to be done by the rules but rules that were confusing me). Getting the blow-by-blow as it were of the decisions how they evolved, helps enormously for those of us who are coming to this later, with smaller departments trying to make sense out of the variously clearly well-cataloged but different, RDA records. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:41 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question Since i see that a Stanford record is being cited in this discussion, i would like to offer a little in the way of explanation. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [RDA-L] thanks -- RE: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
Oh, no offense taken--i just noticed that it was a Stanford University Press book so i figured it was one of our CIP contributions. And it was probably done under the original test policy. And, i should point out, that not everyone at Stanford is necessarily following the same policy--our local policy is that going beyond the LC-PCC-PS and providing extra information is cataloger's judgement. So different catalogers may make different judgements. Since i catalog mostly videos and video games, which almost never have publication dates it's my judgement to use the copyright date as well (ok, i'll acknowledge that there is a copyright date controversy regarding video copyright dates, but that is applicable only in a minority of the cases that i see--i don't do that many mainstream commercial videos). greta - Original Message - From: PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL FOGLER/LTSC patricia.fog...@us.af.mil To: Greta de Groat gdegr...@stanford.edu, Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:53:13 AM Subject: thanks -- RE: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I very much appreciate your detailed reply. I want to hasten to clarify that I wasn’t trying to point out any institution as doing anything wrong or nonstandard. Merely citing an example (of a record that looked to be done by the rules but rules that were confusing me). Getting the blow-by-blow as it were of the decisions how they evolved, helps enormously for those of us who are coming to this later, with smaller departments trying to make sense out of the variously clearly well-cataloged but different, RDA records. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:41 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question Since i see that a Stanford record is being cited in this discussion, i would like to offer a little in the way of explanation.
Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
Good point, Nancy, i didn't remember that the phonogram date was also in that field, which you wouldn't be able to distinguish from a copyright date without the symbol or words to that effect. greta - Original Message - From: Nancy Lorimer nlori...@stanford.edu To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Cc: Greta de Groat gdegr...@stanford.edu Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:50:06 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I will add one thing to Greta's very clear explanation. While the field explicitly states that this is a copyright date, it does not state what type of copyright date is being recorded. There are two types of copyright date--copyright for text (the (c) date) and the phonogram copyright date (the (p) date), which is the copyright for recorded sound. Again, these are two different things, and both may appear on the same item (and be different). I remember vaguely that when the field was first being created, there was some talk of separating the symbol and the date, but in the end they were left together in one field. Nancy On 1/30/2013 9:40 AM, Greta de Groat wrote: Since i see that a Stanford record is being cited in this discussion, i would like to offer a little in the way of explanation. Steven is right, the initial RDA test instructions for pieces which lacked a date of publication were to record the copyright date if it appeared on the piece, and to use it to infer the date of publication. Therefore, you would get the date of publication bracketed and also the copyright date recorded, even if they were the same. We contacted LC and were told that the Date Type coding for this would indeed be t, and the same date would be recorded in Dates 1 and 2 The LC-PCC-PS was recently updated to indicate that the requirement was to infer the date of publication from the copyright date and bracket it, but it no longer says to record the copyright date. Therefore, following this practice, one would have a bracketed date in the 264 1, but not record a 264 3 with the copyright date. In this case, Date Type would be s and there would be no date recorded in Date 2. However, some of us are continuing the original practice because we believe it to be clearer and more useful. It is also not incorrect, it's just that LC is not mandating it any more. One reason is that a bracketed date in the 264 1 is ambiguous. It can mean i have a copyright date that i'm not recording but i'm inferring the pub date from it or it can mean i don't have a date anywhere on this and i'm just guessing based on internal or external evidence or the fact that it just came in the door and looks new. We think recording the copyright date is much more useful for copy cataloging, as one can confirm that the copyright date actually appears on the piece, rather than looking at the record and not knowing whether to look for a date or not. It seems logical and helpful to record a date that actually appears. The other reason is that the copyright date is an explicit legal statement. In these digital days when copyright questions are coming up all of the time, i would think that an explicit copyright date would be something that we'd want to record (even if things are technically copyrighted without it. I was very surprised at the LC-PCC-PS change, as i had thought the original policy quite sensible. It is not redundant, as publication date and copyright date are two different things. We're not needing to save space on cards any more. And i have no insight into why we continue to use the copyright symbol since, as has been pointed out, the field tagging makes the fact that it's a copyright date explicit. I don't remember that ever being discussed, but it is a good point (though programmers should be able to take the date out of the Date2 field if it has been correctly coded). Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: SEVIM MCCUTCHEONlmccu...@kent.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:29:20 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I think perhaps despite the discussion, a question remains on coding in OCLC: If you're using 264s, and the date of publication and the date of copyright are the same, which is the proper code in the Date Type, s or t? Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Asst. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:12 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I'll apologize in
[RDA-L] Carrier type Flipchart
In our regional cataloging experts group, we were dicussing RDA carrier types yesterday. We were completely mystified why flip charts warrant a carrier type of their own (flipchart). We found it very hard to imagine any library or other institution collecting flip charts, in the first place. Stretching our imagination, we could picture a collection of paper sheets which had before been used on a flip chart - but these should then simply get the data carrier sheet, shouldn't they? And if a library really wanted to collect the flip charts themselves (for us, that would mean whiteboards on an easel) - wouldn't that fall under object? I assume that there is a simple solution to this puzzle. Probably it's just some sort of misunderstanding, either due to language or cultural differences. So I wonder: What exactly is meant by flipchart in this respect, and how are flip charts used in Angloamerican countries? The flip charts we were thinking of look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_chart We use the term for the whole device, i.e. the easel and the whiteboard with its mechanism for holding paper sheets. The RDA glossary defines flipchart as hinging device holding two or more sheets designed for use on an easel, which is perhaps not exactly the same. Thanks for your help. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record
Greetings- When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate manifestations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two bibliographic records should be created? Or is this an option, and that, with the proper coding (00x, 33x, etc.) and description, hybrid records are still acceptable? Thanks, Rick McRae Cataloger/Reference Librarian Sibley Music Library Eastman School of Music (585) 274-1370
Re: [RDA-L] Carrier type Flipchart
I think it refers to a type of childrens' (or educational) resource that is published and intended to be used in the classroom. E.g.: http://www.staples.com/Calendar-Time-Sing-Along-Flip-Chart-and-CD/product_753900?cid=PS:GooglePLAs:753900KPID=753900 Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:45 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: [RDA-L] Carrier type Flipchart In our regional cataloging experts group, we were dicussing RDA carrier types yesterday. We were completely mystified why flip charts warrant a carrier type of their own (flipchart). We found it very hard to imagine any library or other institution collecting flip charts, in the first place. Stretching our imagination, we could picture a collection of paper sheets which had before been used on a flip chart - but these should then simply get the data carrier sheet, shouldn't they? And if a library really wanted to collect the flip charts themselves (for us, that would mean whiteboards on an easel) - wouldn't that fall under object? I assume that there is a simple solution to this puzzle. Probably it's just some sort of misunderstanding, either due to language or cultural differences. So I wonder: What exactly is meant by flipchart in this respect, and how are flip charts used in Angloamerican countries? The flip charts we were thinking of look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_chart We use the term for the whole device, i.e. the easel and the whiteboard with its mechanism for holding paper sheets. The RDA glossary defines flipchart as hinging device holding two or more sheets designed for use on an easel, which is perhaps not exactly the same. Thanks for your help. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record
Rick McRae wrote: When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate manifestations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two bibliographic records should be created? Or is this an option, and that, with the proper coding (00x, 33x, etc.) and description, hybrid records are still acceptable? RDA doesn't really deal with records per se. It deals with data intended to describe resources and provide access to those resources. This is probably a difficult thing for people to get used to. It's a different way of thinking. So it would seem that it should be possible to create a MARC record with elements describing all of the various formats that a particular expression was manifested in, and be fully following the spirit and intent of RDA in doing so. HOWEVER, one of the objectives of RDA is Continuity: The data should be amenable to integration into existing databases (particularly those developed using AACR and related standards). (RDA 0.4.2.4) Our tradition has been, generally, to create separate records (initially they were cards, then they were MARC records), each containing the description for only one manifestation of an expression. Therefore I think it's advisable to follow the same practice and create a separate record for each manifestation. That being said, if you put the URL for a digitized version into field 856 of the record for the hardcopy version, and give it 2nd indicator 1 (Version of resource), you would not at all be out of line, in my opinion. This field both describes the relationship between manifestations, and allows the user to obtain the online manifestation. This is considered to be a valid (if not the most desirable) approach for serials, per 31.2.3A in the CONSER Cataloging Manual. In the future, I think (hope) we'll likely only be creating *data*, not records. The data will be associated with the appropriate FRBR Group 1 entities based on the element labels assigned to the data and the identifiers of the specific instances of those Group 1 entities. The data will be able to be collected into records if that's how a system needs it to operate. Hope this helps. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record
Thank you, Kevin-- your response is most informative. I'll bring up the advisability of separate records at a future in-house meeting, but for the time being, seeing that we're wouldn't be out of line by what we're doing presently, we'll stay the course until a future decision reverses our current practice. Rick -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:43 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record Rick McRae wrote: When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate manifestations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two bibliographic records should be created? Or is this an option, and that, with the proper coding (00x, 33x, etc.) and description, hybrid records are still acceptable? RDA doesn't really deal with records per se. It deals with data intended to describe resources and provide access to those resources. This is probably a difficult thing for people to get used to. It's a different way of thinking. So it would seem that it should be possible to create a MARC record with elements describing all of the various formats that a particular expression was manifested in, and be fully following the spirit and intent of RDA in doing so. HOWEVER, one of the objectives of RDA is Continuity: The data should be amenable to integration into existing databases (particularly those developed using AACR and related standards). (RDA 0.4.2.4) Our tradition has been, generally, to create separate records (initially they were cards, then they were MARC records), each containing the description for only one manifestation of an expression. Therefore I think it's advisable to follow the same practice and create a separate record for each manifestation. That being said, if you put the URL for a digitized version into field 856 of the record for the hardcopy version, and give it 2nd indicator 1 (Version of resource), you would not at all be out of line, in my opinion. This field both describes the relationship between manifestations, and allows the user to obtain the online manifestation. This is considered to be a valid (if not the most desirable) approach for serials, per 31.2.3A in the CONSER Cataloging Manual. In the future, I think (hope) we'll likely only be creating *data*, not records. The data will be associated with the appropriate FRBR Group 1 entities based on the element labels assigned to the data and the identifiers of the specific instances of those Group 1 entities. The data will be able to be collected into records if that's how a system needs it to operate. Hope this helps. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record
Rich McRae asked:
When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate mani=
festations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two bibliogr=
aphic records should be created? ...
That is my understanding, just as it was mandated by AACR2. So far,
so far as I know, there has been no LCPS subverting that as the LCRI
subverted AACR2.
If/when Bibframe has expression records, an expression record might
contain both. But we are still doing manifestation records.
You can refer to the alternate form in 530 (which has $u), in 776,
and/or 856 1 (version of resource) $u. but in my view that does not
replace the need for two records due to AACR2's GMD or RDA's media
terms, not to mention fixed fields. Most of our clients prefer 530,
although the PN e-book standard calls for 776.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] GMD revisited
Please excuse the cross-posting ... Dear All, It is safe to say that many catalogers are disastisfied with the 336-338 as a replacement for the GMD. I know that many people are opting to do some sort of awkward work-around to insert a GMD into RDA records that come into their systems. (I really do not want to do that.) I know that some people are continuing to catalog using AACR2 and adding in the RDA fields, creating a hybrid record ... mainly so that they can keep the GMD ... until some more satisfactory solution comes about. (I'd rather not do that, either.) Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!) Cheers, Julie Moore -- Julie Renee Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 “Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie
